35–9. A Question of Ethics—Retaliation by Employers. Shane Dawson, a male homose

Question

35–9. A Question of Ethics—Retaliation by Employers. Shane Dawson, a male homosexual, worked for Entek International. Some of Dawson’s co-workers, including his supervisor, made derogatory comments about his sexual orientation. Dawson’s work deteriorated. He filed a complaint with Entek’s human resources department. Two days later, he was fired. State law made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. [Dawson v. Entek International, 630 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011)] (See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.)

1. Could Dawson establish a claim for retaliation? Explain.

2. Should homosexuals be a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Discuss the arguments for and against amending federal law to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Explanation / Answer

1.Yes, Dawson has established a claim for retaliatory discharge, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. UnderOregon law, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. It is alsounlawful for an employer to discharge an individual because that person has filed a complaint

2.The Justice Department filed an amicus brief Wednesday saying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover employment "discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.